The effect of single tooth implant restorations on the survival, morbidity, pulpal, and periapical health of adjacent teeth: A chart review

Duqum, Ibrahim; Barker, Sarah; Marshall, Elizabeth G.; Wang, Rujin; Preisser, John S.; Khan, Asma

doi:10.1111/cid.12626

Cited by 11 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A case series analysis revealed that the majority of the adjacent teeth with VRFs were premolar or mandibular molar teeth and that all fractured teeth were restored with a crown and had a post present [24]. Duqum et al [26] demonstrated that the requirement for restorative retreatment was significantly higher for teeth adjacent to implant restorations than for the contralateral controls. Similarly, the results of a retrospective study conducted by Yoshino et al [27] revealed that the percentage of the loss of teeth adjacent to implant-supported restorations was higher than that of other posterior teeth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maximal Bite Force Measured via Digital Bite Force Transducer in Subjects with or without Dental Implants—A Pilot Study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aims of the current study were as following: (1) to evaluate the maximal bite forces in patients with dental implants versus patients without dental implants, as measured by a digital bite force transducer (GM10); (2) to evaluate the influences of sex, age, and sleep/awake bruxism on the maximal bite forces of the two groups. Forty patients recruited to the study were divided into two groups: test group (“implant”) if they had one or more posterior restored implants and control group (“no-implant”) without the presence of posterior dental implants. A digital bite fork (GM10) was used to measure the bite forces from three posterior occluding pairs in all participants. Differences in the mean values between the test and control groups and between different sexes were evaluated using one-way and two-way ANOVA tests. A cross-tabulation analysis was conducted to identify a trend line between the groups. There was no significant difference in the maximal bite force between the test and control groups (p = 0.422), but the cross-tabulation analysis revealed a clear trend of a stronger representation of the “no-implant” group at higher occlusal forces. A significant difference was detected between the maximal biting forces of male and female subjects (p = 0.030 in the implant group, p = 0.010 in the no-implant group), regardless of the experimental group. The presence of bruxism and clenching did not influence the bite force values (p = 0.953), and a significant difference was not found between the age groups (p = 0.393). Within the limitations of this study, it may be assumed that there was no significant difference between the maximal bite forces between patients with and without dental implants but that there was a trend line implicating a stronger representation of the “no-implant” group at higher forces. In addition, the results revealed a significant sex-related difference in the maximal occlusal force. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maximal Bite Force Measured via Digital Bite Force Transducer in Subjects with or without Dental Implants—A Pilot Study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Considering the previously reported higher prevalence of decay in teeth adjacent to implants, it is expected that a higher prevalence of endodontic lesions, root canal fillings and restorations is these teeth, which has been partially confirmed by the present results, as higher odds of previous root canal fillings and coronal restoration were found when the tooth is adjacent to an implant-supported crown. Recent studies in teeth adjacent to implantsupported crowns observed an increased incidence of 12.4% of restorations over a 1-year period (Duqum et al, 2018), whilst the caries prevalence ranged between 7.4% and 40.0% depending on the interproximal width (Smith et al, 2020). Although comparisons with the result of the present study are difficult due to the different study designs (radiographs × CBCT) and outcomes assessed, both previous studies appear to support some deleterious effect on the teeth adjacent to implant-supported crowns in line with the present study (Tables 3 and 4).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The few published studies have reported inconsistent results on the status of teeth adjacent to implants (Duqum et al, 2018;Krennmair et al, 2003;Smith et al, 2020); however, there is a consensus that the loss of proximal contacts is an issue that may lead to a deleterious effect on these teeth. These studies have documented the incidence of caries and periapical lesions on adjacent teeth using follow-up clinical records based on periapical films or digital radiographs, which display a well-known lower sensitivity when compared to other imaging modalities, such as the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of periapical lesions, root canal treatments and restorations in teeth adjacent to implant‐ or tooth‐supported crowns: A multi‐centre cross‐sectional study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To describe the prevalence of periapical lesions, root canal treatments and coronal restorations on teeth adjacent to either implant-or natural tooth-supported crowns using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) assessment compared to nonadjacent teeth. Methodology:A total of 1249 CBCT volumes were screened by five pre-calibrated observers in 11 health centres. A step-by-step screening protocol was implemented and reviewed every 3 months, and mandatory setting characteristics were established for all CBCT scans using dedicated visualization software. Intra-and inter-rater reliability tests were conducted. The prevalence of periapical lesions, root canal treatments and coronal restorations was recorded on both teeth adjacent and nonadjacent to implant-(predictor 1) or natural tooth-supported crowns (predictor 2). A binary logistic model (Generalizing Estimating Equations test) was used to verify whether the prevalence of periapical lesion, root canal filling and the tooth restorative status are altered when the assessed tooth is adjacent or not to an implant-supported crown (predictor 1); or to a natural tooth-supported crown (predictor 2). Odds ratio and confidence intervals for the dependent variables at both predictors were obtained.The significance level was set at .05. Results:A global sample of 22 899 teeth was included. Compared to nonadjacent teeth, the prevalence of periapical lesion, root canals treatments and restorative procedures when adjacent to implant-supported crowns was 10.7%, 19.6% and 22.9% higher, respectively, and when adjacent to tooth-supported crowns was 19.3%, 35.6% and 37.4% higher respectively. These results were significant only for variables root canal filling and coronal restoration (p < .0001). Odds ratio to present root canal treatment is 2.57 times higher (CI 1.95-3.39, p = .0001) when the tooth is adjacent to implant-supported crown and 4.39 times (CI 3.49-5.53, p = .0001) when adjacent to tooth-supported crown, whilst for restorative procedure, the odds are, respectively, 1.63 (CI 1.29-2.06, p = .0001) and 2.30 (CI 1.92-2.76, p = .0001).

show abstract

“…Upkeep of the pulpal and periapical wellbeing of neighboring teeth is of imperative significance to forestall further treatment needs of patients getting dental and implant treatment. While, there has been broad research on implants and their restoration, there has been constrained investigation of their impacts on neighboring teeth (5) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Occlusal Load Analysis in Dental Arches Restored with Single Implant Supported Restoration Using Two Occlusal Schemes. (T-Scan in-vivo study)

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate the effect of the size of occlusal contact areas of single implant supported restoration on occlusal load distribution on adjacent premolars using a digital occlusal analyzer (T-Scan). Material and Methods:Twenty four patients with missed lower first molar were received delayed dental implants, where they divided into 2 main groups according to the presence or absence of adjacent lower second molar (n=12). Group (Ι): Patients with missing mandibular first molar with the presence of adjacent second molar and premolar teeth,while group (ΙΙ): Patients with missing mandibular first molar tooth with the presence of adjacent premolars and absence of adjacent distal molars.Two occlusal schemes were followed during superstructure construction, dividing each group into two subgroups, (n=6).Patients were evaluated for occlusal load distribution before and after cementation of the crown, and after 3 and 6 months using T-scan system (9.1). Results: Regarding second premolar; the occlusal load distribution % in the different groups was statistically insignificant. Regarding first premolar; occlusal scheme 1 in both groups showed statistically significantly higher median occlusal load distribution % on the lower first premolar than occlusal scheme 2 in both groups. Conclusion: The size of occlusal contact area of the implant supported crown is an important factor affecting occlusal load distribution on adjacent premolars. Decreasing the size of occlusal contact area of the implant supported crown will increase the force on adjacent premolars.

show abstract

The effect of single tooth implant restorations on the survival, morbidity, pulpal, and periapical health of adjacent teeth: A chart review

Cited by 11 publications

References 16 publications

Maximal Bite Force Measured via Digital Bite Force Transducer in Subjects with or without Dental Implants—A Pilot Study

Maximal Bite Force Measured via Digital Bite Force Transducer in Subjects with or without Dental Implants—A Pilot Study

Prevalence of periapical lesions, root canal treatments and restorations in teeth adjacent to implant‐ or tooth‐supported crowns: A multi‐centre cross‐sectional study

Digital Occlusal Load Analysis in Dental Arches Restored with Single Implant Supported Restoration Using Two Occlusal Schemes. (T-Scan in-vivo study)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About